While the dumb asses of our nation get ready to invade the still stable, might get a nuke sometime maybe nation of Iran, a nation that already HAS nuclear capability has become so chaotic, it’s government has declared a state of national emergency.
" The Supreme Court declared the state of emergency illegal, claiming Musharraf had no power to suspend the constitution, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry told CNN.
A senior Pakistani official told CNN that the emergency declaration will be “short-lived,” and will be followed by an interim government. Martial law is a way to restore law and order, he said.
Shortly afterward, Chaudhry was expelled as chief justice, his office told CNN. Troops came to Chaudhry’s office to tell him."
So as we get ready to go slam Iran, Pakistan is falling the hell apart. We need to do something; Pakistan is where the terrorists actually are, after all. What do you say, war hawks of T-Nation? Is it time to mobilize towards Islamabad? Or should we start doing some heavy duty negotiation handling?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
We need to do something; Pakistan is where the terrorists actually are, after all. [/quote]
Musharraf would be toast if the US/UK stopped supporting him. The country could then democratically elect a president with some common sense. Bhutto (or Sharif) didn’t come home for tea and biscuits. She knows the moment has come and the country has had it with the dictatorial ways of Pervez.
I thought we should have attacked Pakistan years ago. Or teamed up with them to soround the islamists and wipe them out.
As far as the “country could then democratically elect a president with some common sense”, I can not see that happening, especially with Bhutto, who they already attempted to kill. I guess you are right if you consider an Islamist someone with common sense. Who else is out there to take over if Musharraf goes down?
Question:
Are there terrorists in Pakistan because Musharraf is cracking down, or is Musharraf cracking down on Pakistan because there are terrorists?
Prior to 9-11, were there any attempts on his life, or attacks on Paksistan from internal terrorists for that matter?
Seems to me that while Pakistan was helping the Taliban and the rebel group in the Kashmir and everything was cool. After 9-11, and Musharraf became a closer ally of the US, the Islamists turned on him.
Same thing as with Gadaffi, who the terrorists also turned on this week.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
We need to do something; Pakistan is where the terrorists actually are, after all.
Musharraf would be toast if the US/UK stopped supporting him. The country could then democratically elect a president with some common sense. Bhutto (or Sharif) didn’t come home for tea and biscuits. She knows the moment has come and the country has had it with the dictatorial ways of Pervez. [/quote]
I disagree Lixy. Whilst I am a big supporter of democracy I do believe that Musharraf is still necessary for a stable Pakistan. The reality is that Pakistan is not ready for democracy. Large portions of the rural community still vote along tribal lines rather then voting for people who support their interests. For example the extreme islamist parties enjoy considerable voting support but polls have shown that only a minority of people voting for them support their ideals. It is just that the islamists have strong tribal ties.
Bhutto enjoys popular support but I doubt she could deal with the islamists and certainly Musharrif is the most powerful opposition to the islamist movement.
In my opinion Musharrif is between a rock and a hard place. Bhutto and the international community are demanding democracy but he needs to keep the military under thumb to prevent islamists (or at least anit-Bhutto factions) from taking power.
Didn’t a certain personage come home to Iran in 1979? Yeah, that worked out really well.
The Arabic/Muslim mindset is intolerant of democracy. If they don’t win in an election, they set off IEDs in police stations and schools. Too many years under the Ottoman thumb, I’d guess. Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.
The Brits and Israelis TRIED to civilise the Middle East and failed. We probably won’t have any better luck.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I thought we should have attacked Pakistan years ago. Or teamed up with them to soround the islamists and wipe them out.
As far as the “country could then democratically elect a president with some common sense”, I can not see that happening, especially with Bhutto, who they already attempted to kill. I guess you are right if you consider an Islamist someone with common sense. Who else is out there to take over if Musharraf goes down?
Question:
Are there terrorists in Pakistan because Musharraf is cracking down, or is Musharraf cracking down on Pakistan because there are terrorists?
Prior to 9-11, were there any attempts on his life, or attacks on Paksistan from internal terrorists for that matter?
Seems to me that while Pakistan was helping the Taliban and the rebel group in the Kashmir and everything was cool. After 9-11, and Musharraf became a closer ally of the US, the Islamists turned on him.
Same thing as with Gadaffi, who the terrorists also turned on this week.
[/quote]
Musharraf has been giving anti-islamist speeches and cracking down on the extremists since he took power, though Musharraf has often said that no one in Pakistan had even heard of Al-Qaeda until 9-11.
As far as I know Musharraf never helped the Taliban, but they Taliban had bases and supporters in North-West Pakistan. Futher the JUI party (a Pakistani Islamist Party) were open supporters of the Taliban.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I thought we should have attacked Pakistan years ago. Or teamed up with them to soround the islamists and wipe them out.
As far as the “country could then democratically elect a president with some common sense”, I can not see that happening, especially with Bhutto, who they already attempted to kill. I guess you are right if you consider an Islamist someone with common sense. Who else is out there to take over if Musharraf goes down?
Question:
Are there terrorists in Pakistan because Musharraf is cracking down, or is Musharraf cracking down on Pakistan because there are terrorists?
Prior to 9-11, were there any attempts on his life, or attacks on Paksistan from internal terrorists for that matter?
Seems to me that while Pakistan was helping the Taliban and the rebel group in the Kashmir and everything was cool. After 9-11, and Musharraf became a closer ally of the US, the Islamists turned on him.
Same thing as with Gadaffi, who the terrorists also turned on this week.
[/quote]
Musharraf has been giving anti-islamist speeches and cracking down on the extremists since he took power, though Musharraf has often said that no one in Pakistan had even heard of Al-Qaeda until 9-11.
As far as I know Musharraf never helped the Taliban, but they Taliban had bases and supporters in North-West Pakistan. Futher the JUI party (a Pakistani Islamist Party) were open supporters of the Taliban.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Didn’t a certain personage come home to Iran in 1979? Yeah, that worked out really well.
The Arabic/Muslim mindset is intolerant of democracy. If they don’t win in an election, they set off IEDs in police stations and schools. Too many years under the Ottoman thumb, I’d guess. Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.
The Brits and Israelis TRIED to civilise the Middle East and failed. We probably won’t have any better luck.
Time to just conquer the whole region.[/quote]
This is so racist and ignorant, it’s actually painful to read.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Didn’t a certain personage come home to Iran in 1979? Yeah, that worked out really well.
The Arabic/Muslim mindset is intolerant of democracy. If they don’t win in an election, they set off IEDs in police stations and schools. Too many years under the Ottoman thumb, I’d guess. Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.
The Brits and Israelis TRIED to civilise the Middle East and failed. We probably won’t have any better luck.
Time to just conquer the whole region.
This is so racist and ignorant, it’s actually painful to read.[/quote]
I think your too quick to call out racism there, Is he lying anywhere in there? From what we have been shown so far he’s not too far off base. That racism card is used to much to try and win debates.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I thought we should have attacked Pakistan years ago. [/quote]
Well, attacking Pakistan is not as easy as you make it seem. They have nukes, remember?
Your foreign policy is aggressive and interventionist, but it certainly isn’t suicidal.
[quote]Question:
Are there terrorists in Pakistan because Musharraf is cracking down, or is Musharraf cracking down on Pakistan because there are terrorists? [/quote]
Neither. Musharraf has been cracking down because he is an illegitimate ruler. That’s what dictators do. Don’t go around trying to rationalize the horrrors.
This is not really relevant. The guy appointed himself president around July 2001. So, you’re virtually asking why he wasn’t attacked over the month of August 2001. No offense, but it’s pretty silly.
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
I disagree Lixy. Whilst I am a big supporter of democracy I do believe that Musharraf is still necessary for a stable Pakistan. [/quote]
Not really. What you probably mean to say is that Musharraf is necessary for a pro-US Pakistan.
On a side note, were you a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
That is the case all around the Islamic world. People would rather vote for Islamists just to get some change. I personally voted for Islamists in the last elections of my country, even though I am neither a rural person, nor a member of their “tribe”. I voted for change, and those kooks are the only ones moved by genuine concern for the country rather than by profit (at least, that’s what they would have us believe). Once the bloody dictators out of the way, the country could then get rid of them and progress into a complete democratic state.
It is not in the US’ best interest to have the third world turned into democratic places. Look into the records of the declassified intelligence memos and other reports.
Drop the “camel-riding Muslim living in a tent” image for a second. How do you think Islamists won in Algeria (and were overthrown by the military with US support)?
It’s because people are sick of their governments being Washington’s bitches that they are voting for the only alternative. It’s sad that we don’t have populists like Chavez or Correa, and have to vote for Islamists to make a point, but that’s the way it is.
“The extremists need a dictatorship, and dictatorship needs extremists.” – B. Bhutto
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Didn’t a certain personage come home to Iran in 1979? Yeah, that worked out really well.
The Arabic/Muslim mindset is intolerant of democracy. If they don’t win in an election, they set off IEDs in police stations and schools. Too many years under the Ottoman thumb, I’d guess. Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.
The Brits and Israelis TRIED to civilise the Middle East and failed. We probably won’t have any better luck.
Time to just conquer the whole region.
This is so racist and ignorant, it’s actually painful to read.[/quote]
I agree with John: how is it racist? Identifying a fact about people isn’t racist. For ex, if I said that most of the people living in Nigeria are black, is that racist? If you think that, your lib profs have done their job too well.
How many functioning democracies/republics are in the Middle East anyway? Oh, our beloved Iran has one — as long as a candidate passes muster from the Islamic Council. Maybe Egypt, where Mubarek’s son will soon be ‘President’? Pakistan? No. Hmmm…it seems the only ones outside of Israel are Iraq and Afghanistan.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.[/quote]
No. That’s Catholicism. Not Islam. No Muslim has to give up his free will to anyone except God. Whether he’s a “mystical fictional being” is a whole other story.
No. The Bristish tried to DESTROY the Middle East and failed. Colonizing and massacring a people who had just had their age of enlightenment isn’t civilizing. It’s called “being scared and attacking them when they’re weak so they don’t give the west a run for their money.”
I wonder how the enlightened Muslims of the earlier years of the caliphate saw the miserable Savage Europeans in their dark age. For people with assumed mental disorders during the middle ages, Muslim doctors were suggesting changes in diet, while European doctors were suggesting exorcisms!
The Russians failed. The French failed. The British failed. The US is failing.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I thought we should have attacked Pakistan years ago.
Well, attacking Pakistan is not as easy as you make it seem. They have nukes, remember?
Your foreign policy is aggressive and interventionist, but it certainly isn’t suicidal.
[/quote]
So they have nukes? We would be attacking their soil. would they be so suicidal to launch a nuke against our troops attacking their cities? Maybe we should attack Waziristan and leave right before they launch the nukes, then the problem would be solved for sure.
This is not really relevant. The guy appointed himself president around July 2001. So, you’re virtually asking why he wasn’t attacked over the month of August 2001. No offense, but it’s pretty silly. [/quote]
Excuse me that I did not know the EXACT month he became a dictator.
I still say he is being attacked more because he is an ally of the West and the US than because he is a dictator. This week al-Qaeda declared war on Gadaffi. Al-Qaeda had no problem with Gadaffi while he was promoting terrorism against the West. Now he’s pro-Western and they turned on him.
And, really, who cares if Musharraf cracks down on al-Qaeda because he is a dictator. It’s not like these people are upstanding, law abiding citizens living under the heel of his iron boot. These are criminals and will and should be treated as such by the most democratic, liberal government they could possibly install.
Hey Lixy, this “democratic government” you want, if the Islamists sieze control, will they stomp out al-Qaeda? Why would this be a good thing?
That is the case all around the Islamic world. People would rather vote for Islamists just to get some change. I personally voted for Islamists in the last elections of my country, even though I am neither a rural person, nor a member of their “tribe”. I voted for change, and those kooks are the only ones moved by genuine concern for the country rather than by profit (at least, that’s what they would have us believe). Once the bloody dictators out of the way, the country could then get rid of them and progress into a complete democratic state.
[/quote]
Dude, al-Qaeda ARE the extreme Islamists, so how would voting for them do any good in working against them? I am totally unclear of what you are talking about here.
In other words, what if a Taliban warlord or a veteran from the Red Mosque, gets to be President of Pakistan, do you then forsee the country getting rid of their wahabbi benefactors? I forsee more trouble, deaths, mass murders, invasions of India, Afghanistan and other countries in the area. Maybe with your dreaded nukes involved.
Who would you rather have ruling Pakistan, the terrorists sympathizers or US sympathizers?
[quote]Kamran114 wrote:
Colonizing and massacring a people who had just had their age of enlightenment isn’t civilizing. [/quote]
We’re talking about centuries between the Muslim enlightenment and European colonialization, you obviously know that right? Enless you consider the period of the Ottomans, Mamelukes, Moghuls, and Safavids the “enlightenment” of the Muslims. To me that was their declining period.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So they have nukes? We would be attacking their soil. would they be so suicidal to launch a nuke against our troops attacking their cities? [/quote]
I don’t know what their response would be, but I’m pretty certain it will involve using their nuclear weapons. What other choices would they have?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Excuse me that I did not know the EXACT month he became a dictator. [/quote]
No biggy.
When you say attacked, do you mean:
Attacked by me?
Attacked by the quasi-totality of the world’s media?
Attacked by the Pakistani Supreme Court?
Attacked by the Pakistani people longing for democracy?
Attacked by his political opposition?
Your post is far from accurate.
Al-Qaeda is irrelevant politically. The only country where they have a chance is Saudi Arabia because the regime there is as close to their ideology as they come.
Nobody is condemning his crack downs on Al-Qaeda. Do you even know what’s going on in Pakistan right now? Try reading a newspaper from time to time…
Of course. And that is what’s happening everywhere. Nobody tolerates them anymore. On a side note, Saddam treated them pretty harshly until you decided to turn the place into a breeding ground for extremists.
What [b]I[/b] want does not matter. It’s about letting the Pakistani people determine their own destiny. Clearly, in the current state, that ain’t happening. It’s what I condemn.
To answer your question, any Islamist political party worldwide that gets elected will kick Al-Qaeda’s ass and treat them as the criminals they are. People don’t want mad men killing civilians and giving their faith a bad name.